Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.

The Prophetic Parables of Matthew 13
by A.W. Pink

Chapter 4:

The
Parable of the Leaven.

"Another parable spoke
he unto them: The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and
hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened" (v. 33).

In the mercy of God we are
not left to any human opinions or authority, nor is the meaning of the parables
of Matthew 13 open to argument. Christ Himself explained for us the first two
and the seventh, and it is obvious that the intervening four must be interpreted
in strict accord with them. There is an unmistakable unity underlying the
whole chapter. As there is a noticeable connection between the first two
parables in relation to the beginning of the kingdom of heaven in its
present form, so there is a close relation between the third and fourth which
treat of its extension and corruption.The third gives us
the external aspect or outward growth of the kingdom, the fourth reveals
its internal aspect and secret corruption.

The popular interpretation
of this parable regards the "leaven" as representing the Gospel and
its power, the "woman" the Church. Here are the words of Dr. John
Gill: "Leaven is everywhere else used in a bad sense . . . here it seems to
be taken in a good sense, and the Gospel to be compared unto it."The
"woman," he tells us, is "the church" or the ministers of
the Gospel. Calvinists understand the "three measures of meal" to
represent God’s elect; Arminians understand them to prefigure all mankind. The
latter expound the parable as follows: As the result of the Gospel, and by means
of its assimilating power, the mass of humanity is ultimately to be penetrated,
affected, and blest. So firmly is this belief embedded in the minds of
church-goers that it is hard for them to tear loose from it.

It is apparent at once that
our understanding and interpretation of this parable turns upon a correct
definition of the "leaven." If this is a figure of the Gospel, and if
the meal represents the human race, then it necessarily follows that,
ultimately, all must be regenerated or at least reformed by the Evangel. But if
the "leaven" is the symbol of corrupting evil, and the meat stands for
the pure truth of God, and that this parable also supplies a picture of the
Christian profession, then it necessarily follows that, ultimately, the truth of
God is to be corrupted throughout Christendom. How are we to find out
which of these is true? Only from the Holy Scriptures. Let us now examine the
current interpretation of this parable in the light of the Word:

1. If the popular view is
correct then, in this chapter, Christ flatly contradicts Himself. What He has
said in the first three parables is dead against world-conversion or even world-reformationby means of Gospel preaching. In the first
parable, instead of our Lord teaching that the good Seed would bear fruit in every part of the field, He declared that most of its ground would prove
uncongenial and unproductive. Nor was there any hint that later "sowers"
would find conditions improved; rather did He intimate that things would get
worse. In the second parable the picture which He drew of the coming Harvest
expressly forbids such a thought, and positively excludes the idea of
world-conversion in this Age. In the third parable He predicted that Christendom
would develop into such a monstrosity that the Devil’s agents would be
afforded shelter in it and would rule over it. How then can this fourth parable
teach the very opposite?

2. The post-millennial
interpretation of this parable is flatly contradicted by what we are told in
verses 11, 35 of Matthew 13. There we learn that these parables are
"mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," "things which have been
kept secret from the foundation of the world." Dr. Gill echoes the teaching
of the Reformers, and they have been re-echoed by later Calvinists, affirming
that the "leaven" represents the Gospel. But that cannot be.
Whatever may or may not be prefigured, the "Gospel" is the last thing
which could possibly be in view. For this reason: the Gospel was not an
unrevealed secret in O.T. times. Galatians 3:8 declares that the Gospel was
"preached unto Abraham."

3. If the
"leaven" represents the Gospel and the "meal" the human
race, or, as Dr. Gill teaches, God’s elect in their natural condition, then
the figure which Christ here employed is a faulty one. And this in three
different respects. First, in the way it works. How does
"leaven" act? Why, it is simply placed in meal, and then it works of
itself! That is all: just place it there, leave it alone,and it
is bound to leaven the whole lump. But is that the way the Gospel works?
Certainly not. Multitudes have received the Gospel, but it has had no
effect upon them!

Second, in the actor here
mentioned. It is a "woman’’ who places the leaven in the meal. But the
Lord Jesus Christ has not committed His Gospel into the hands of women.There were none among the twelve, nor among the seventy whom he chose and
sent forth. The preaching of the Gospel is a man’s job. The part allotted to
the sisters, and an important part it is, is to hold up the hands of their
ministering brethren by prayer and supplication.

Third, in the effects it
produces. When leaven is placed into meal it causes it to swell, it puffs it
up!Is that what the Gospel does when it enters human hearts?
No indeed. It produces the very opposite effect. It humbles, it abases.

4. The popular
interpretation is contradicted by the plain facts of history and by present-day
experience. Were the current explanations true, then we should be forced to
acknowledge that this prediction of Christ’s has failed in its accomplishment.
The Gospel has now been preached for nineteen centuries, yet not a single nation
or state, no, nor even city. town or village, has been completely evangelized—let
alone won to Christ! If the popular view is the correct one, then the Gospel is
a colossal and tragic failure.

5. To make the
"leaven" a figure of the Gospel and its power, of that which is good,
is to contradict every other passage in Scripture where this figure is used.
Christ was speaking to a Jewish audience, and with their knowledge of the O.T.
Scriptures none of them would ever dream that He had reference to something that
was good. With the Jews "leaven" was ever a figure of evil.

The first time that
"leaven," in its negative form, occurs in the Bible is in Genesis
19:3, where we are told that Lot "did bake un-leavened bread"
for the angels, and that "they did eat." No doubt leavened bread
was a common commodity in the wicked city of Sodom. Why then did not righteous
Lot place some of it before the angels? Because he knew better. He must have
known that they, like Peter, allowed "nothing common or unclean" to
pass their lips. They would receive nothing with the least semblance of evil in
it. Many congregations today are not nearly so careful about their food—their soul-food. They will readily swallow any rubbish that is handed them from
the pulpit, and the sad thing is that they will do so without any protest.Why do they not go to the preacher and say, Why don’t you give us the
Bread of life?

In Exodus 12 it will be
found that Jehovah commanded the Israelites to rigidly purge their houses of all
"leaven’’ at the Passover season. Why was this if "leaven" is
a type of that which is good? Exodus 34:25 tells us that God prohibited any
"leaven"from accompanying offerings of blood. Leviticus
2:11 informs us that "leaven" was also excluded from every offering of
the Lord made by fire.

This parable in Matthew 13
is not the only occasion when the Lord Jesus employed this figure. How did He
use it elsewhere? In Matthew 16:11 we find Him saying to the disciples,
"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." There, it
is plainly a figure of that which is evil.So in Luke 12:1 He
said, "Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees which is
hypocrisy." Would He then deliberately confuse His disciples by
using it as the figure of good in Matthew 13?

The Holy Spirit has also
used this same figure through the apostle Paul. In what manner? In 1 Corinthians
5:6, 7 we read, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump."
Would they be told to "purge out" that which was good?The
last passage in the N.T. in which "leaven" is mentioned is Galatians
5:7-9. Note there three things: first, it is called a "persuasion"—something which exerts a powerful and moving influence. Second, it hinders men
"from obeying the truth." Third, it is expressly said to be "not from Him which calleth you." Thus, that which is a thing of
fermentation—really, incipient putrefaction—is, throughout Scripture,
uniformly a figure of corruption—-evil. It is remarkable that the word
"leaven" occurs just thirteen times in the N.T., a number
always associated with evil and the work of Satan.

Objectors have appealed to
two passages in the O.T. where "leaven" is employed in a good sense. But when examined it will be found that they are only seeming
exceptions. The first is in Leviticus23:17. The two loaves presented
unto the Lord at the Feast of Weeks were to be baked "with leaven."
But there is no difficulty here. The Feast of Weeks foreshadowed what is
recorded in Acts 2, where the "first fruits" of this dispensation are
seen. The two "loaves"prefigured saved Jews and
Gentiles. Inasmuch as the old nature remains in those who are born again,
the "leaven" was needed in the loaves which represented these
believers. Whenever the typical bread represented Christ it must be unleavened,
wherever it typified His people it must be leavened.

The second passage is in
Amos 4:5, "Offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven." This was
the language of irony,which means it has a meaning the very
opposite of what is said. You will sometimes hear a parent say to a willful
child, You do that and I will deal with you! Does he mean for the child to
actually do it? No, the very reverse. So it is in Amos 4:5: the preceding verse
proves it—"Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply
transgression; and bring your sacrifice every morning." Clearly it is the
language of irony.

6. Let us now consider the
"three measures of meal." Post-millennarians say that they represent
the human race among whom the Gospel is working. If so, the "meal" is
a figure of that which is evil. The human race is fallen, sinful,
depraved; "the whole world lies in the Wicked one" (1 John 5:19). Nor
is the usual explanation supplied by Calvinistic commentators any better. They
say the "meal"stands for God’s elect in their natural
state. But the analogy of faith is against them. Let our appeal be to the
Scriptures.

"And Abram hastened
into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine
meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth" (Gen. 18: 6). Did Abraham
prepare for the Lord and His angels food out of that which symbolized evil? Note
what is said in 1 Kings 17:14-16. God does not feed His servants on that which
speaks of evil! Now where does "meal" for bread come from? Any
child can answer: not from evil tares, but from good wheat. It is the product of
the good Seed. Then that which is good, wholesome, nutritious, pure, can never
be a figure of fallen and corrupt humanity.

In Genesis 18:6 the
"three measures of meal" are a figure of Christ’s person,just as the "tender calf" in verse 7 which was killed and dressed
prefigured His work. The meal is a type of Him who is the Corn of wheat (John
12:24) and the Bread of life. And thus in the language of N.T. symbolry the
"meal" stands for the doctrine, of Christ.

7. The action of the
"woman" in our parable exposes the error of the common interpretation.
She "took," not "received;" and hid the leaven
in the meal. Is this the way in which the servants of God preach His Gospel? Is
the evangel something to be whispered in secret? Does God bid His servants act
stealthily? No. The Lord has said to them, "What I tell you in darkness,
that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the
housetop" (Matthew 11:27).

Writing to the Corinthians,
and describing the character of his own ministry, the apostle Paul said,
"We faint not, but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not
walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by
manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in
the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2). But in our parable, the woman is acting
dishonestly and deceitfully: she stealthily introduced a foreign and corrupting
element into the meal. Her object was to effect its deterioration. If the reader
will turn to Leviticus 2:11 he will find that this "woman" was doing
the very thing which the Word of God forbade her; and he will also observe that
she left out the oil,which was the very thing the Scriptures
enjoined!

Let us now turn, briefly,
to the positive side, and give what we believe is the true interpretation. As
already stated, the "three measures of meal" stand for Christ as the
food of His people: Christ as presented in the written Word, therefore, the
doctrine of Christ. The "woman" refers, primarily, to the Papacy, and
generally, to all corrupters of God’s truth. Romanism has many
"daughters." It is most significant that the leading false cults in
Christendom were originated by women.Modern Spiritualism was
started in Boston, U.S.A., in 1848 by the Fox sisters. Seventh Day Adventism was
founded by Mrs. White. Christian Science was organized by Mrs. Eddy. Theosophy
was devised by Madame Blavatsky, and is now engineered by Mrs. Besant.

The "leaven"
symbolizes the corrupting of God’s truth by the introduction of evil doctrine—compare
Matthew 16:12. The unadulterated truth of God is too heavy for the natural man:
the sovereignty of God, the helplessness of man, the awfulness of sin, the
totality of human depravity, the eternal punishment of the wicked, are
indigestible to the carnal mind. Therefore, Rome and her "daughters"
have introduced the lightening "leaven," so as to make, what they hand
out, more palatable to their dupes. And thus has history repeated itself. Of old
God complained to Israel, "Ye offer polluted bread upon Mine
altar" (Mal. 1:7). So today priestcraft and clericalism have corrupted the
bread of God.

It is to be noted that the
"three measures of meal" were not removed,nor was
something else substituted in their place. Instead, a foreign element was
mingled with it, an element which has slowly and gradually corrupted it. In 2
Thessalonians 2:4 the apostle Paul declared, "The mystery of iniquity does already
work."The leaven had started to act even then, and, as our
Savior declared, it would work till "the whole was leavened." How
nearly this is the case today the majority of our readers are sadly aware. There
are but few places to which an hungry child of God can now go and receive pure
Bread. But thank God there are still a few such places. While the Holy
Spirit remains on earth amongst the saints, God’s truth willbe proclaimed. While He is here, there is a hindering cause,
preventing the "whole" from being "leavened." But at the
Rapture the Hinderer will be "taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2:7),
and then the "whole" will be completely leavened. The
"salt" will be removed, and nothing will be left to stay universal
corruption.